Mike Huckabee: Where’s the Outrage Over Permanently Separating Families in Abortions?


Political commentator Mike Huckabee addressed the latest immigration outrage Sunday by asking why there is not similar anger about the permanent separation of families through abortion.

“I don’t like immigrant children being temporarily separated from parents, but where is outrage over PERMANENT separation of a child and mother when the baby is ripped apart in the mother’s womb by knives of abortionists?” the former governor wrote Sunday on Twitter.

Several pro-abortion groups — including NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America — have been blasting the Trump administration over allegations that it is separating immigrant children from their parents. The wide-spread outrage speaks to the vital importance of keeping families together, but, as Hucakbee said, pro-abortion groups are responsible for permanently separating hundreds of thousands of mothers and fathers from their children every year. Yet, there is very little outrage in the mainstream media about their deadly abortion work.

Many pro-life and pro-abortion supporters alike have expressed extreme concerns about the separation of refugee and immigrant families.


Gov. Huckabee’s tweet came as Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) pointed to “credible” media reports, in a letter to Nielsen and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar dated June 16, “describing instances where parents and children seeking asylum at a port of entry have been separated,” reports

According to CNSNews, “[i]n a series of tweets over the weekend, DHS Secretary Nielsen wrote:

‘We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.

‘You are not breaking the law by seeking asylum at a port of entry.

‘For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous Administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between ‘family’ members, or if the adult has broken a law.

‘This misreporting by Members, press & advocacy groups must stop. It is irresponsible and unproductive. As I have said many times before, if you are seeking asylum for your family, there is no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry.’”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


 DACA: ‘Dreamers’ include those arrested for murder, rape and other sex crimes
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


June 18, 2018, 12:00 pm

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


The Pope’s Ticona Problem: Bolivian Cardinal-Designate Continues to Court Controversy



A new scandal is continuing to develop for Pope Francis, regarding one of the men he plans to make a cardinal at the 29 June consistory. The Bolivian bishops’ conference has just distanced itself from one of their own, Bishop Toribio Ticona Porco, whom he announced as a cardinal-designate last month. The Bolivian bishops now say that Ticona does not speak in their name.

The background for this unusual episcopal move is that Ticona is a friend of the controversial Socialist Bolivian President Evo Morales, who appears to be seeking re-election to a fourth term in violation of Bolivian Constitutional law – a move the Bolivian bishops’ conference opposes. Ticona has also come under fire after allegations surfaced that he has been living in concubinage with a woman with whom he has two children, and that he sold land from the Bishopric of Potosí to her in 2014.

Discord in the Bolivian Episcopal Conference

On the matter of the growing episcopal conflict in Bolivia, the German bishops’ news website published a report on 16 June. The news agency ACI Prensa also published an article on the matter on 13 June.

According to these reports, the conflict began after Cardinal-elect Toribio Ticona Porco (81), the retired Bolivian bishop of Corocoro, gave an interview on 6 June in which he made some encouraging comments about Evo Morales, saying that he hopes the Church hierarchy of Bolivia would work together with him on certain grounds. Morales had tried in 2016, with the help of a referendum, to receive permission from the Bolivians to be re-elected as President in 2019, but the people rejected his idea. However, Morales has recently indicated that he might nevertheless try to get re-elected for a fourth time.

Cardinal-elect Ticona commented in the 6 June interview on this conflict situation with regard to Morales, saying that he would prefer not to comment on whether or not Morales should be re-elected because “we are friends.” With regard to the 2016 referendum which rejected Morales’ re-election, Ticona abstained from a commentary. Ticona then insisted that Morales and the Bolivian bishops should “mutually respect one another.” “In matters that unite us, we can work together,” he added. These words as spoken in this recent interview seem to have been seen as an episcopal endorsement of President Morales. Since Ticona is soon to be a cardinal, some media present this interview as the opinion of the highest Church authority in Bolivia, thus undercutting the official resistance against Morales coming from the Bolivian bishops’ conference.

Since the Bolivian bishops’ conference had rejected Morales’ attempt at getting permission to be re-elected, they responded soon after this Ticona interview. In their 13 June statement, they refer to “misinterpretations of some statements of the cardinal” which “have been able to create confusion in the public.” The bishops direct the public to the different media statements and pastoral letters that they have previously published. “We reject any attempt to divide or manipulate the Catholic Church [in Bolivia],” they add.

Moreover, the Bolivian bishops also make it clear that the “legitimately elected authorities” of the bishops’ conference – i.e., its President, Vice-President, Secretary General and Permanent Episcopal Council – are “the official voice of the Catholic Church in Bolivia.” Cardinal Ticona, however, “is a member of the Bolivian bishops’ conference,” and he, therefore, has the “right to speak, as a bishop emeritus, in accordance with the bishops’ conference’s own statutes.” But not as the highest authority of the Church in Bolivia, one could add.

As reports, Evo Morales himself has now also intervened in this matter. While in Russia for the World Cup, he put on twitter some of his specific comments: “My respect, affection, and admiration for my brother Toribio Ticona, Cardinal of Bolivia. Strength! The bishops and Catholics of the base [from the “base communities”], who defend the poor and who work with you, are with you.”

That Morales and Ticona are close could also be seen when Ticona said, at the end of May, that Morales had congratulated Ticona upon his appointment to the cardinalate; the President even announced that he would accompany Ticona to Rome for the ceremony. “He congratulated me and declared that, finally, someone has appointed an indigenous cardinal.” Ticona and Morales had earlier worked politically together and they even even marched together in manifestations. Ticona himself also recently made reference to his stemming from an indigenous farming family, and that this fact might be the reason that he is now being criticized. President Morales, who also stems from an indigenous background, is a revolutionary Socialist politician who once, in 2015, even gave Pope Francis during his papal visit a hammer-and-sickle crucifix as a gift. At that time, this gesture caused much turmoil among faithful Catholics, especially in light of the fact that Pope Francis did not seem to be troubled at all by this symbolic Marxist gift, even though so many Catholics had gravely suffered under Communism.

Additionally, in 2017, Morales had caused much controversy when he started to set up a ban on evangelization (or “proselytization”), something which he later quite ambiguously withdrew. The planned new law had foreseen a penalty of up to 12 years imprisonment if a person tries to convince another person to join a religious organization.

It is noteworthy that Pope Francis and President Morales met each other in person at least five times since 2013.

Allegations of a Double Life

Next to this emerging conflict between Bishop Ticona and the Bolivian bishops’ conference, Ticona has also recently come under pressure due to allegations concerning his private life. As OnePeterFive reported recently, Bishop Ticona came under pressure after the Spanish-speaking website Adelante la Fe revealed allegations that the bishop also has a “wife” and children. While he himself denied such allegations, Adelante la Fe, as well as as other websites such as LifeSiteNews, confirmed the truthfulness of that initial report.

In a new report dated today, 18 June, Miguel Ángel Yáñez of Adelante la Fe has revealed additional information regarding the testimony of “direct witnesses” who knew Ticona and his female companion — named only as “Leonor RG”. The Bolivian newspaper Página siete has now also published an investigative report into the matter, saying that the cardinal designate had sold church-owned land to the aforementioned “Leonor RG”, who “in public…would have presented herself as the ‘wife’ of the cardinal.”

Yáñez also alleges in his new report that Ticona has been using his name in differing combinations for different purposes. While he shows up in the initial decree of convocation of the consistory as “HE Mons. Toribio Ticona Porco”, his official identification card lists him as “Toribio Porco Ticona”. “How important is this?” asks Yáñez. “So much, and it is another element [that is] more indicative in all [that has been] exposed. We have consulted with various legal sources in Bolivia, and all confirm that this practice is not only not common in the country, but is highly irregular and characteristic of people who want to hide things and play with confusion.” [emphasis in original]

Yáñez includes, in his report, highlights taken from the testimonies of various people — including a priest and others from the town of Oruro, where Ticona is said to have lived with his “wife” — making allegations based on first hand knowledge. Among these is the observation of a neighbor of the “couple” (Ticona and Leonor RG), who claims that having been in the house shared by the two, where he saw a “photo where the man that everyone thought was the ‘husband’ appeared…dressed as a bishop with John Paul II.”

No Reaction From Rome

Cardinal-elect Ticona is one of fourteen prelates who is soon to receive the red hat from Pope Francis at the Consistory on 29 June. The next two weeks will show how Pope Francis will try to deal with this grave public estrangement between Cardinal-elect Ticona and the entire Bolivian bishops’ conference, as well as the potential scandal of his alleged double life — a scandal which has, as yet, not been denied by the Vatican even though it has prompted a “discreet” investigation by the Apostolic Nunciature in Bolivia.

This awkward situation at the coming Consistory reminds us of the Consistory of 2017 where one of the Cardinals-elect, Archbishop Jean Zerbo, of Bamako (Mali) was accused of embezzlement of funds, and this was reliably reported only a few weeks before his installment as a cardinal. According to a Catholic Herold report, there had also been been speculations “that Francis might not make Archbishop Zerbo a cardinal following reports that he and two other Mali bishops had opened Swiss bank accounts totalling 12 million euros ($13.5 million).” Archbishop Zerbo did, in the end, attend that consistory, and Pope Francis nonetheless made him a cardinal.

“After the French Le Monde broke the news, Pope Francis did not show any signs of rethinking his nomination of Cardinal Monsignor Jean Zerbo,” says a report of Vatican Insider. Thus, this Pope appears to be somewhat indifferent toward such serious accusations against his Cardinals, as can also be seen in the fact that he still keeps both Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga and Cardinal Francisco Errázuriz in his Council of Nine Cardinals, despite grave allegations of misconduct against both men. Indeed, he just met them again, from 11-13 June in Rome, for their Council meetings.

Time will tell if the pattern of special treatment for prelates favored by Pope Francis will repeat itself at the June 2018 consistory.

Steve Skojec contributed to this report. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment




by David Nussman  •  •  June 15, 2018    166 Comments

Bp. Edward Weisenburger proposes canonical penalties for enforcing laws that split up families

{Commentary by Abyssum}

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. ( – As the U.S. bishops discuss immigration, one bishop says the Church should punish Catholic government officials who enforce the president’s immigration policies. Critics have noted no similar calls to punish pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage officials.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) began its biannual meeting on Wednesday in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The meeting opened with a special focus on immigration policies, and several bishops condemned the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigrants.

For the salvation of these people’s souls, maybe it’s time for us to look at canonical penalties.Tweet

Bishop Edward Weisenburger of Tuscon, Arizona even suggested using canon law to punish those responsible for splitting up families. Possessing a degree in canon law, the bishop said, “Even though what I am saying may be risky or dangerous, I think it’s important to point out that canonical penalties are there in place to heal — first and foremost to heal.”

He continued, “And therefore for the salvation of these people’s souls, maybe it’s time for us to look at canonical penalties.”

When the USCCB’s Twitter account shared Bp. Weisenburger’s comments, many Catholics lashed back, calling the proposal indicative of a fixation with immigration issues. One Twitter user responded, “At the border of the placenta? ‘Womb to tomb’ or go home, you’re trolling.”

A canon lawyer told Church Militant that the proposition is ill-defined, asking rhetorically:

Would these proposed canonical penalties also be applied to court officials who separate children from parents arrested for other crimes? If, say, a single mother commits larceny with her children in tow, and the police, upon arresting her, place the children in foster care, would those officers be subject to these proposed penalties? Are the bishops proposing the erection of family-friendly jails and detention facilities?

Some Catholics have celebrated Bp. Weisenburger’s comments. In response to his suggestion, Bp. John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky claimed he has spoken with border patrol employees “struggling in their own consciences with how do they carry out these unjust policies.”

Other Catholics have complained, pointing out that many U.S. bishops refuse to apply canonical penalties to those who support abortion.

Are the bishops proposing the erection of family-friendly jails and detention facilities?Tweet

In Bp. Weisenburger’s own diocese of Tuscon, Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva is a nominal Catholic who supports abortion on demand.

Planned Parenthood volunteer lobbyists meeting

with Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) in 2011.

Grijalva’s voting record shows he has continually voted to protect abortion, earning him a 100-percent approval rating from abortion lobbyists at NARAL. Grijalva also supports same-sex “marriage.”

Bishop Weisenburger, who was transferred to Tuscon in late 2017 from Salina, Kansas, has issued no statements calling for similar canonical penalties against Grijalva or other Catholic politicians who support the intrinsic evils of abortion or gay marriage.

In Salina, he joined the other Kansas bishops in producing a YouTube video in 2016 called “Reflections on the 2016 Election by the Catholic Bishops of Kansas.”

In the video, the bishops talk about issues like health care for the poor, immigration and environmental stewardship. The video says about abortion, “All Catholics have a moral obligation to keep this human rights catastrophe [of abortion] at the forefront of their minds when voting.”

The bishops’ video also emphasized the issue of religious liberty for America’s Christians.

On June 4, the bishops of Arizona (including Bp. Weisenburger) issued a joint statement emphasizing “the critical need to protect immigrant children and families seeking safety from violence by keeping them together.”

At the American bishops’ biannual meeting, immigration has been a prominent topic of discussion. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, USCCB president and archbishop of Galveston-Houston, delivered a stern rebuke on Wednesday of the federal government’s recent move to tighten the definition of asylum for immigrants.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions decided on Monday that asylum would only apply to migrants fleeing systemic persecution based on sex, race or ethnic group, religious beliefs or political views. This overturned the Obama administration’s broader use of asylum statutes, which included victims of domestic abuse and gang violence.

Sessions argued that he is restoring logical consistency to the law based on how asylum is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

{The naivety of the bishops proposals regarding the separation of children from their parents while their case is being adjudicated after they illegally cross our borders completely ignores the problem of children and young people who are brought into the United States as part of the sex-slave traffic and who are told by their ‘parent’ captors that if they reveal that their captors are not their real parents   the accomplices of the ‘parents’ who are holding their real parents captive in the country of origen will torture and kill their real parents.}
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment



Activist judge to Christian charged with LGBT ‘hate’ speech: ‘Truth…is simply not relevant’

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, June 14, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the “truth” of statements made by a Christian about a transgender political candidate’s biological sex is “not relevant” and cannot be used as a “defence” against allegations that the Christian was engaging in “hate” speech.

Christian and pro-family activist Bill Whatcott was hauled before the Tribunal last year on the grounds that he had engaged in “hate” speech for publicly exposing a transgender political candidate who claimed to be female, but who was born a biological male. The complainant, Mr. Ronan Oger, who now goes by Ms. Morgane Oger, was a candidate in the 2017 provincial election. 

Oger is the Vice-President of B.C.’s New Democratic Party (NDP).

States court documents: “Ms. [sic] Oger was a candidate in the 2017 provincial election. During her [sic] candidacy, Mr. Whatcott distributed hundreds of flyers in her [sic] riding. The flyers were titled ‘Transgenderism vs. Truth in Vancouver‐False Creek.’ They described Ms. [sic] Oger as a ‘biological male who has renamed himself… after he embraced a transvestite lifestyle.’

“Ronan is running for the NDP in the Vancouver-False Creek riding and BC’s media and the NDP are promoting a false narrative that Ronan is a woman born into a male body,” the flyer explained.

“But the truth is Ronan’s DNA will always be male, he will never have a uterus, and no amount of cosmetic surgery, fake hormones, or media propaganda is going to be able to change those facts,” the flyer continued. 

Whatcott stated in his flyer his concern “about the promotion and growth of homosexuality and transvestitism in British Columbia and how it is obscuring the immutable truth about our God given gender.” He called switching gender an “impossibility,” adding that it exposes people to harm.

Oger, who lost the election, filed a complaint with the B.C. Tribunal in May, 2017, alleging that Whatcott’s flyer was “discriminatory” and exposed transgender people to “hatred and contempt.”

When Whatcott and his lawyer attempted to defend the truth of the flyer, namely that Oger was, in fact, a biological male, Tribunal member Devyn Cousineau would have none of it. 

Cousineau ruled that “the ‘truth’ of the statements in the flyer is not a defence.” 

“Therefore, to the extent that Mr. Whatcott intends to call witnesses to establish the truth of his impugned publications, that evidence is simply not relevant to the legal issue and will not be heard by this Tribunal,” she wrote. 

The B.C. Tribunal describes itself as an “independent, quasi-judicial body created by the B.C. Human Rights Code.” The Tribunal, composed of unelected members, is responsible for “accepting, screening, mediating, and adjudicating human rights complaints.”

Cousineau excluded in the case evidence that Oger is a biological male because she thought it “intrusive.”

“In my view, Mr. Whatcott’s requests are overly intrusive into Ms. [sic] Oger’s privacy and not at all relevant for the disposition of this complaint. Furthermore, the basis for the requests is questionable insofar as they are premised on Mr. Whatcott contesting that Ms. [sic] Oger is a transgender woman. That fact is the very foundation of his publications concerning her [sic] fitness for office.”

Whatcott said that Cousineau’s ruling was biased. 

“Her rejection of giving any consideration to the truthfulness of my statements and her admonishment that I can’t have any expert testimony that testifies to the truthfulness or accuracy of my statements in my election flyer pretty much means this trial will be no more credible than Stalin’s show trials in the former USSR,” he wrote on his blog. 

“And I am supposed to expect impartial justice from this leftist kangaroo, who believes the truthfulness of my statements is irrelevant?” he added.

Commenting on Oger’s record, LifeSiteNews asked Whatcott why he had concentrated on Oger’s claims to be female when he opposed Oger’s election campaign. 

“Transvestitism (falsely called transgenderism”) is being pushed by the media and the leftist elites seeking to turn the once free and moral west into a sewer,” Whatcott replied. “The issue is much bigger than Ronan.” 

“He simply happened to be the transvestite politician that everyone was pretending was a woman. I decided to speak truth to the matter and the rest is history.” 

Whatcott believed that Oger’s medical records would have helped in the case as they would have testified to the truth that, as Whatcott stated in his pamphlet, Ogen is actually male. 

“We now have a problem as the human rights judge explicitly stated the truth doesn’t matter,” Whatcott said. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



Dear Doreen
I am not sure what you want, so I have listed documents on four categories of news on slavery.
There is slavery in Australia, particularly in Canberra.
Around 35 million slaves in Africa, and about a million cross international boundaries each year.  These are the figures I have heard, and I have no reason to doubt them.
Slave raids go on in north east Africa, and there are slave markets in many Islamic countries.
Mauretania was the last country to officially stop the slave trade, in 1980.  But I don’t think it has made any difference.
In every country where there is a significant Islamic population, you will find slavery.
The conditions these slaves live under are appalling.
But there is no interest whatever from our government.  And even less from our bishops, who tend to concentrate on more important things like global warming and other similar evils.
Our American friends, who are occasionally presented with demands for ‘reparation’ for slavery, should insist that before they will consider any application, those demanding a handout should successfully get a suitable amount of compensation from the Arab Muslims who sold their ancestors to Americans.
PS  Barack Obama is 50% white.  He is also part black (from his Kenyan grandmother) and part Arab (from his Kenyan grandfather).
This raises the possibility that the grandfather owned the grandmother.  If so, Obama is the descendant of slave owners.  
The Arab word for ‘black’ is ‘abd.’  The Arab word for ‘slave’ is ‘abd’.  A coincidence?
Slavery in General
Sex slaves
The Slave Trade
Slaves Kept in Embassies
Attachments area
Preview YouTube video Somalia: Enslaved migrants sold in Libya return home

Somalia: Enslaved migrants sold in Libya return home

Preview YouTube video UK: Angry scenes at Libyan embassy slave auction protest

UK: Angry scenes at Libyan embassy slave auction protest
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


Eccles and Bosco is saved

Cardinal condemns God for separating families

Posted: 17 Jun 2018 02:18 PM PDT

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has slammed God for building a wall round Heaven and separating families.Said His Eminence, “It is shocking to think that there is no free access to Heaven, and that people who illegally try to enter – perhaps when St Peter’s attention is distracted by a discussion of fishing techniques – are rounded up and interned in Hell. This means that some people are entering Heaven to discover that their parents have been sent elsewhere.”

Donald Trump

An artist’s vision of God.

A spokesman for God (St Matthew of Catholic Voices) remarked that Divine Immigration Policy clearly stated “And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. So there!”

Meanwhile, the USCCB stressed that they were speaking out in their capacity as a pro-life organization: they were concerned about immigration, but had very little objection to children being destroyed in the womb, and they would certainly not deny communion to abortionists, whether practising or simply preaching the doctrine of death. In this they were backed up by organizations such as “Catholics for Choice”, “Catholics for Infanticide”, “Catholics for Herod” and “Catholics for BLOOD SLAUGHTER MURDER DEATH PSYCHO AAAAGGGGHHH”.

Daniel DiNardo

“In the words of Holy Scripture: VOTE DEMOCRAT.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister

Germán Arana, the Jesuit Who Advised Francis Badly


> Italiano
> English
> Español
> Français

> All the articles of Settimo Cielo in English


The first head to roll, in the work of rebuilding the Catholic hierarchy of Chile that has been set in motion by Pope Francis, has been the most predictable: that of Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid, removed as bishop of Osorno.

But there is something that does not add up, in this operation and in its backstory.

The photo above is a clue to this. It was taken at the cathedral of Osorno on March 21, 2015, the day of the turbulent entrance into the diocese of Bishop Barros, who was made the target of serious accusations of unfitness but strenuously defended by the pope. And who is next to him, in liturgical vestments and with the act of appointment in his hand, while the protest rages all around? A Jesuit who is not Chilean but Spanish, Germán Arana, a friend and spiritual guide of Barros but above all one of the most intimate confidants of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

When in the middle of last May Francis convened all the Chilean bishops in Rome for three days of “discernment” on the sexual abuse that has come to light in recent years, Barros came too, but from Madrid and together with none other than the Jesuit Arana.

Who had played a decisive role, three or four years before, in the appointment of Barros as bishop of Osorno, according to what was stated with assurance last May on the para-Vatican website “Il Sismografo” by its founder and director, Luis Badilla, a Chilean vaticanista who lives in Rome and a former journalist for Vatican Radio, after the first leaks about the Jesuit’s role had appeared in the Spanish blog “Infovaticana“.

Until a couple of months ago, Arana’s role was entirely unknown not only to the general public but even to specialists on Vatican affairs.

Not even when Francis, last April, confessed that he had “made serious errors in the assessment and perception of the situation, in particular through the lack of reliable and balanced information” did anyone mention Arana in identifying those who had led the pope on.

Instead, the main culprits in having induced Francis to promote Barros to the diocese of Osorno and then to defend his innocence were and still are systematically identified in the cardinals Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa and Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, previous and present archbishop of Santiago, and in the apostolic nuncio in Chile, Ivo Scapolo.

But if one looks back at the winter between 2014 and 2015, when that appointment was made, there is a letter from Pope Francis that contradicts this reconstruction.

The letter – brought to light by Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press in January of this year, in the run-up to Francis’s voyage to Chile – bears the date of January 31, 2015.

At that date, Barros’s appointment as bishop of Osorno was already official, made public by the Holy See the preceding January 10. But the permanent council of the episcopal conference of Chile had written to the pope, asking him to revoke it “in extremis.” And it is to this same permanent council that Francis responds with the letter that is now known to us. In which he rejects their request.

In the letter, Francis relates that at the end of 2014 even the nuncio had gone about urging Barros to decline the appointment and instead withdraw for “a period of sabbatical,” also extending the same request to two other Chilean bishops implicated in the same affair.

And Barros – as we also learn from the pope – in effect wrote a letter of resignation, which Francis however did not accept, on account – he explains – of a flaw present in the letter of resignation itself, in which Barros had included the names of the two other bishops spoken of by the nuncio, names that instead were supposed to remain secret.

Apart from the flimsiness of this justification given by Francis for what he did, from the pope’s letter it therefore emerges in glaring fashion that neither the nuncio nor the permanent council of the Chilean hierarchy – meaning its highest representatives, beginning with the archbishop of Santiago – had championed the promotion of Barros as bishop of Osorno. On the contrary, both of them had gone about opposing it, both before and after its official publication, evidently maintaining that the accusations against him were credible.

But there is more in that letter from Francis of January 31, 2015.

The pope reports that during those same days, Barros was doing “a month of spiritual exercises in Spain.” Now we know where and with whom: in Madrid, and under the guidance of the Jesuit Arana, a former professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and since 2011 the rector of the Spanish seminary of Comillas, besides having – as “Il Sismografo” emphasized – a reputation as “an exceptional former of priests and a great guide in the spiritual exercises.”

Not only that. Even in the last months of 2014 – in the interval between his previous position as military ordinary of Chile and his upcoming one as bishop of Osorno – Barros had spent periods in Madrid, always close to Fr. Arana. And it is thought to have been precisely this latter who convinced Bergoglio of the soundness of the appointment. Luis Badilla, in “Il Sismografo,” has no doubts in discovering a reference to the decisive “consultancy” of Arana in these words spoken by Francis during the return flight from Chile, on January 21, 2018, in strenuous defense of Barros’s innocence, before the about-face a few weeks later under the weight of crushing evidence:

“Now, the case of Bishop Barros. It is a case where I called for an examination, an investigation, which was thorough. Really, there is no evidence of guilt, nor does it appear that there will be any.”

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that Fr. Arana should have decided to walk beside Barros during his highly contested entrance into the diocese of Osorno, nor that he should have been close to him in the following years, until his arrival in Rome a month ago and his subsequent inevitable removal.

One uncertainty remains. What will Francis do about this improvident Jesuit adviser of his? Will he keep him in the circle of his most intimate and most trusted confidants? This is not the first incident that has happened to him on account of one of them with no removal afterward. Viganò is a case in point. This circle of his stalwarts is a serious weak point of Francis’s pontificate.

With one extra complication. In the ten pages that Francis conveyed to the Chilean bishops in mid-May as an outline for “discernment,” he scolded those bishops and superiors who entrust “to priests suspected of active homosexuality” seminaries and novitiates, with their associated recruitment. He addressed a similar rebuke a few days later – behind closed doors – to the Italian bishops meeting in Rome for their plenary assembly. “We are full of homosexuals,” he lamented. But then why does Francis not “discern” in the circle of the ecclesiastics closest to him?


As a side note to this story it must be pointed out that among the numerous cases of sexual abuse committed by members of the Chilean clergy that have come to light in recent years there is one that has received very little coverage outside of Chile but is no less serious. And it too involves the Society of Jesus.

It was reported in detail by Edward Pentin in the National Catholic Register:

> The Ignored Chilean Abuse Case. At a Jesuit High School

The epicenter of this other story is the Colegio San Ignacio in Santiago, run by Jesuits and with a decidedly progressive profile, the opposite of the nearby conservative parish of El Bosque, long governed by that Fernando Karadima who is today the emblem of the horrors, after his conviction in 2011 by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, but who for years was an extremely popular educator and guide, in good and in evil, of teeming ranks of young people and priests, some of whom, including Barros, went on to become bishops.

The culprit in this case is the Jesuit Jaime Guzmán Astaburuaga, who committed his misdeeds in the eighties and nineties, sexually abusing numerous young people between the ages of 12 and 17. The Chilean province of the Society of Jesus became aware of this abuse in 2010. And in 2012 it convicted him.

But it was only in January of this year that the provincial of the Chilean Jesuits, Cristián del Campo, made Fr. Guzmán’s conviction public. Prompting the reaction of sixty alumni of the Colegio, who in an open letter labeled as “unjustified” the five years of silence over the conviction, which brought even more suffering to the victims and compromised the necessary work of restoration and prevention.

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



Fr. James Martin, Friendship and Dialogue, and the Truth about Human Sexuality
by Robert P. George
within Marriage, Religion, Sexuality
Jun 17, 2018 08:12 pm
It is not merely that we “reject the sin, but love the sinner,” though we do that; we reject the sin because we love the sinner—radically love him, willing his good for his own sake, affirming the teaching of the Church in all its richness because we recognize that it is liberating and life-affirming.
Share this article:    

Fr. James Martin, S.J. is a friend of mine—someone I admire for his impressive gifts and talents, and especially for his uncompromising pro-life witness and the great heart he has for people of all faiths (and none) who suffer, struggle, or are victims of misfortune or injustice. My friendship with Fr. Martin, who is best known for his efforts to shape Catholic ministry to our brothers and sisters who experience same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria, and my willingness to engage him in dialogue and commend him when I believe he is right, have upset some Catholics who fear that he works to undermine the Church’s teachings on sexual morality and marriage. They seem to want me to withdraw my friendship which, some have suggested, “gives him cover.” I must decline.

To be sure, there have been legitimate grounds for concern that Fr. Martin rejects some of the Church’s teachings on sex and marriage. Comments of his in various venues have invited the inference that he does not count these as Church teachings after all. So in an essay here at Public Discourselast October, I asked him to clarify his views. He has since done just that in an America magazine essay clearly, accurately, and quite beautifully setting forth the Church’s teachings on marriage as the conjugal union of a man and woman, on the intrinsic immorality of non-marital (including same-sex) sexual relations, and on same-sex sexual desires as objectively disordered.

Fr. Martin’s explicit recognition of these principles as genuine Church teachings—together with his repeated insistence that he does not reject any of the Church’s teachings—removes doubt (at least for those of us who take Fr. Martin at his word and do not suppose him to be lying about what he actually believes): Fr. Martin accepts the Church’s teachings, including those on sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Whatever ambiguity or perhaps error there may have been before his recent piece in America, Fr. Martin has left no room for detractors (or, for that matter, supporters) to suppose that he believes marriage can be between persons of the same sex or that homosexual conduct can be morally good—propositions that are clearly in defiance of Catholic teaching.

In particular, it would now be unfair for his opponents—and dishonest and disloyal for his friends—to suggest that he considers same-sex sexual relationships morally licit, much less capable of forming a marriage. For this would be to accuse Fr. Martin of lying either (a) in his recent America article spelling out the Church’s teachings on these issues, or (b) in his frequent and consistent denials that he rejects any Church teaching.

If Fr. Martin is lying, which I resolutely do not believe he is, then he, of course, is answerable for that to God. But please note that by the same token, anyone who falsely accuses him of lying is also answerable to God.

For my part, I will keep pursuing friendship with Fr. Martin, and truth-seeking, mutually respectful dialogue on points of disagreement—points that aren’t, then, matters of definitive, settled Catholic teaching. In that spirit, I want to highlight and again thank him for his recent articulation of Catholic teachings pertaining to marriage and homosexuality, and clarify the closely related pastoral questions on which we do disagree.

Father Martin Articulates the Church’s Teaching on Sexual Morality and Marriage

Brief background: In my Public Discourse essay, I addressed the puzzle of how Fr. Martin could deny that he rejects any of the Church’s teachings when some of his comments had seemed to contradict the Church’s teachings on (1) the nature of marriage as an inherently male-female union, (2) the intrinsic immorality of non-marital (including all same-sex) sexual conduct, and (3) the consequent status of same-sex sexual desires as intrinsically disordered (that is, not ordered to the true goods of conjugal union). Following Greg Brown, I surmised that Fr. Martin may believe that these three points don’t qualify as official Church teachings, because they haven’t been “received” (i.e., accepted) by many of those to whom they have been directed. In other words, I wondered aloud whether Fr. Martin was able to say that he accepted the Church’s teaching because he was engaged in a kind of mental reservation about what did and did not count as “the Church’s teaching.” I then wrote:

If I am wrong, as I would love to be [italics in the original], about Fr. Martin’s fidelity to the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexual ethics, he could establish that instantly by saying what he so far refuses to say. Since he is willing to say abstractly, “I do not reject the teachings of the Church,” it is puzzling that he is not willing to affirm concretely (or even say that he “does not reject”) the Church’s teachings that marriage is the conjugal union of husband and wife and that non-marital sexual acts are morally wrong. It’s especially puzzling since these are issues he has made central to his work and witness—issues on which the Church’s teaching is today reviled by so many, especially among our secular cultural elite.

Here I effectively asked Fr. Martin to say whether he understands the magisterium of the Church to have officially and therefore authoritatively taught that marriage is inherently opposite-sex, that same-sex sexual relations (like all non-marital sex) are intrinsically immoral, and that desire for them is thus intrinsically disordered.

Six months later, in an article in America magazine, Fr. Martin affirmed, with no hint of ambiguity or evasion, that these are indeed the magisterium’s teachings—an affirmation which, coupled with his repeated and explicit denial that he rejects any Catholic teaching, proves that Fr. Martin accepts these teachings on marriage and sexual morality as valid, true, binding in conscience. Please permit me to quote him at length:

[I]n the eyes of the church simply being gay or lesbian is not a sin—contrary to widespread belief, even among educated Catholics. That may be one of the most poorly understood of the church’s teachings. Regularly I am asked questions like, “Isn’t it a sin to be gay?” But this is not church teaching. Nowhere in the catechism does it say that simply being homosexual is a sin. As any reputable psychologist or psychiatrists will agree, people do not choose to be born with any particular sexual orientation.

But when most people ask questions about “church teaching” they are referring not to this question, but to restrictions on homosexual, or same-sex, activity as well as the prohibition on same-sex marriage. Homosexual acts are, according to the catechism, “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to natural law.” (The bulk of the catechism’s attention to homosexuality is contained in Nos. 2357-59.) Consequently, the homosexual orientation (and by extension, any orientation other than heterosexuality) is regarded as “objectively disordered.”

Where does this teaching come from, and what does it mean? While this teaching has some biblical roots (Gn 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tm 1:10), we can perhaps best understand it from the church’s traditional reliance on natural law, which was itself heavily influenced by the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas (who himself drew on Aristotle).

Natural law is founded on the idea that God’s divine will and divine plan for the world and for humanity are not only revealed in the natural world but are, perhaps more important, self-evident to the human mind. During my philosophy studies, the Catholic sister who taught us medieval philosophy told us, “Aquinas wants us to see that the world makes sense.” One can understand God’s plan, says Aquinas, not only by observing nature but also by using our reason.

We can begin with the Thomistic idea that the world “makes sense.” From that starting point, Aquinas would say that it’s clear that everything is “ordered” toward something. Its Aristotelian telos, or endpoint, should be obvious both to our eyes and to our reason. For example, an acorn is quite obviously “ordered” toward becoming an oak tree. A child is “ordered” toward becoming an adult. Likewise, every act is judged according to whether it is properly oriented toward its proper end. In terms of sexuality, all sex is “ordered” toward what are called the “affective” (love) and “generative” (having children) ends, within the context of a marriage.

Consequently, according to the traditional interpretation of natural law, homosexual acts are not ordered toward those specific ends and so they are deemed “disordered.” Thus, “under no circumstances can they be approved,” as the catechism states. Consequent to that, the homosexual orientation itself is viewed as an “objective disorder” since it can lead to “disordered” acts.

Here we need to make clear that the phrase “objective disorder” does not refer to the person himself or herself but to the orientation. The term is also not a psychological description but comes from the perspective of philosophy and theology. Moreover, it does not detract from the inherent dignity of any human being, since God creates all human beings equal and good.

This leads to the church’s official teaching on chastity for “homosexual persons.” Since homosexual activity is not approved, the person may not engage in any sort of sexual activity: “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” Here the catechism means celibate chastity, since every person is called to the chaste expression of love—even married couples. (Broadly speaking, chastity, in Catholic teaching, is the proper use of our sexuality.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also states that gays and lesbians can and should approach “Christian perfection” through chastity, with such supports as “the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace.” In other words, gays and lesbians, the catechism states, can live holy lives.

Needless to say, all these considerations rule out same-sex marriage. Indeed, official church teaching rules out any sort of sexual activity outside the marriage of a man and a woman—thus the church’s prohibitions on activities like premarital sex, adultery and masturbation.

Who can say fairer than that?

On April 7, 2018, I responded to Fr. Martin in a tweet:

I commend Fr. James Martin for a clear statement of Catholic teaching on homosexual acts: reject sin, love sinners. All people have dignity.

It’s worth noting in particular Fr. Martin’s excellent explanation of an often misunderstood teaching of the Church: namely, that wayward sexual desires—including homosexual desires (he writes “orientation,” a term I myself do not favor)—are disordered: meaning, again, not orderedto the goods of conjugal union. He correctly notes that this teaching does not suggest that persons (as opposed to desires a person may happen to have) are disordered, nor does it “detract from the dignity of any human being.”

Exactly. In clarifying this important Church teaching, Fr. Martin also clarifies his own view, as I had urged in my Public Discourse essay (whether or not it was among the items that prompted Fr. Martin’s America article—which is something I simply don’t know). There I noted that one way Fr. Martin seemed to be contradicting the Church’s teaching was in his call to replace the word “disordered” with “differently ordered.” For the latter seems to imply not disorder, but simple variety (like being blonde or brunette, or right-handed or left-handed). But in America, he clearly identifies the disordered nature of same-sex sexual desires as part of the Church’s teaching. Since he doesn’t reject the Church’s teaching (as, once again, he’s repeatedly noted), he recognizes that such desires are in fact not rightly ordered—and explains why in America with sensitivity, firmness, and clarity.

The article also makes other true and essential points with charity and grace:

But there is more to the church’s teaching on this topic in the catechism. Perhaps mindful of the specialized philosophical and theological language, the church teaches that “every sign of unjust discrimination” against gays and lesbians (again, here “homosexual persons”) must be avoided, and gays and lesbians must be treated with the virtues of “respect, compassion and sensitivity.”

Fr. Martin is absolutely right. And he is right to remind his readers of this great truth. It, too, is proclaimed by the Church. It is definitive Church teaching and is in no way inferior in standing to the Church’s teachings on the nature of marriage and the immorality of non-marital sexual conduct.

Fr. Martin also observes that when it comes to those who experience same-sex desires and even those who act on them, “the Gospel values of love, mercy and compassion are the building blocks of all church teaching.” This, too, is true—and beautiful. Indeed, I do not see how any Christian could deny it. And I thank God that it’s true, for which of us is not a sinner who falls short and is constantly in need of love, mercy, and compassion? I would add that it is deeply un-Christian to vilify those who experience same-sex attraction or to regard those who yield to the temptation to engage in homosexual acts as somehow more depraved than those who commit other sexual sins—or sins of, say, dishonesty, pride, greed, or envy.

On all of this, I’m on the same page with Fr. Martin, as I understand him in light of the America article. We stand with the Church. It is not merely that we “reject the sin, but love the sinner,” though we do that; we reject the sin because we love the sinner—radically love him, willing his good for his own sake, affirming the teaching of the Church in all its richness because we recognize that it is liberating and life-affirming.

Points of Disagreement

So where do we disagree?

Mainly, I think, on whether same-sex attraction (or other forms of feeling related to sexuality, such as the dysphoria or dysmorphia people have in mind when they use the term “transgender”) is a valid basis for establishing one’s identity, and whether we ought to recognize and affirm identity built around same-sex attraction (or those other forms of feeling). Fr. Martin believes we should. I believe we shouldn’t.

This is a deep, multidimensional, and important debate. The right answer will determine, for example, what sort of language we ought to use (“same-sex attracted” vs. “LGBT+”) and whether we ought to affirm celebrations of certain forms of “identity” such as those celebrated in “Pride” parades and other events. For those who join Fr. Martin and me in affirming the Church’s teaching on the nature of marriage and the wrongness of non-marital sexual acts, the debate implicates descriptive (sociological) as well as directly normative issues.

One such question is whether, as a matter of fact, homosexual conduct and relationships integrated around it are among the things centrally being celebrated in Pride events. If so, I assume that Fr. Martin would join me in saying we ought not to be celebrating sin. But since he has urged the Church to recognize “Pride” and even encourage Catholic families to affirm “Pride” events, it must be the case that Fr. Martin does not understand these events to be celebrating homosexual conduct or relationships integrated around it. That’s a point to be debated—again, not as a normative question, but as a sociological matter—a matter of social meaning: what do planners and participants in Pride events mean to be celebrating?

On the question  whether we ought to affirm “LBGT identity” and speak in terms that signal that affirmation, I strongly believe my position against doing so is more consistent both with the overall teaching of the Church pertaining to marriage and sexuality and with the values that teaching upholds. But I have no doubt that Fr. Martin would contest that point. Since, however, I cannot say that the magisterium of the Church has definitively adopted the position I affirm—I’ve had to draw some inferences, and I’m certainly not infallible—it is incumbent on me to listen carefully to Fr. Martin’s counterarguments and to be willing to give them fair, open-minded consideration. I am confident he would adopt the same attitude towards my arguments. He recognizes, as I do, that the point of debate in this domain is not for adversaries each to seek victory, but for friends jointly to seek truth—not as a cold abstraction, but for its life-giving, liberating goodness. In the end, I know that I, and I believe Fr. Martin, will be happy and grateful to be guided by the wisdom of the Church herself. It is certainly superior to any that I might possess; I suspect that Fr. Martin would say it is superior to any wisdom he has been given. No one who regards himself or herself as a faithful Catholic would imagine that his or her wisdom surpasses the wisdom of the Church.

Having said these things, I would appeal to Fr. Martin to reconsider his support, which has been enthusiastic and vocal, for organizations such as New Ways Ministry and Out at St. Paul’s—organizations that unambiguously contradict and seek to undermine the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexual morality. His support for these organizations—motivated by his laudable desire to reach out in a welcoming spirit to those whom they purport to serve—leads people to wonder whether he is being honest in saying that he does not himself reject the Church’s teachings. New Ways Ministry has twice been severely rebuked by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Out at St. Paul’s has explicitly claimed that Pope Francis is “wrong” to reaffirm the Church’s teaching on marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Fr. Martin stands with the Pope and the Church, as I do. But that cannot be done consistently with an endorsement of Out at St. Paul’s.

Friendship and Dialogue

To those of my fellow Catholics who think I should shun Fr. Martin or devote my thinking and writing to defeating and embarrassing him, I must say that I do not see things your way. If you think that I am being “duped” (as some have said), I ask you to consider that he himself endures criticism—some of it abusive—for befriending and engaging in dialogue with me (and, again, for his firm and consistent pro-life advocacy). Furthermore, he has accepted me as a friend despite my criticisms of some of his past statements, and he has been willing to clarify his position when I and others expressed concern that he might be engaging in a kind of evasion. (I have no doubt that he will likewise give honest consideration to my fraternal appeal to him to reconsider support for ministries that undeniably contradict the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexual morality we both embrace.) This is what good dialogue partners do. He should be commended. Let the dialogue continue.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment